Bail granted for GST ITC fraud as investigation is complete and evidence is primarily documentary.

The applicant, Anil Singh, the proprietor/controller of M/s Sonam Sales and M/s Yuvraj Trading, was arrested on January 16, 2026, in connection with an investigation into "bogus billing"

The prosecution alleged that the applicant facilitated the fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) through M/s Ramdoot Enterprises without the actual physical movement or delivery of goods

It was further alleged that transactions were conducted on paper using fake invoices received via WhatsApp without supporting e-way bills or transport receipts

The applicant moved the High Court of Chhattisgarh seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the nature of the economic offence and the current stage of the investigation

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) governing the grant of regular bail

It examined the penal provisions under Sections 132(1)(c) and (f) of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, which pertain to the wrongful availment of ITC without the supply of goods

The Court also considered the fundamental principle that "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" and the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India

The Court observed that the allegations against the applicant primarily involve the wrongful availment of ITC, a charge that rests largely on documentary evidence rather than ocular testimony

The Court noted that the investigation appeared to be substantially complete, as the applicant’s statement had been recorded, relevant searches were conducted, and documents were seized

The Court emphasized that the applicant had been in custody since January 16, 2026, and determined that further custodial interrogation was no longer necessary for the progress of the case

While acknowledging the respondent's concerns regarding revenue loss, the Court found that continued incarceration was not warranted given the documentary nature of the evidence and the status of the investigation

It held that the applicant be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court

The Court clarified that this order would remain in force until the final disposal of the case